watched this video and can see why Guru ji didn't want us to join in eating this way, it has somepoints worth considering but I wouldn't take it too far like current idiots in India who want to ethnic cleanse.

Here is the hate filled bigotry from a mullah in pakistan. Hope this is an eye opener for those praising Pakistan. These bigots are free to make big speeches to crowds in Pakistan. Shame on them!!
https://youtu.be/7dWlanixDWs

Hi, I just want the names of a few Muslims that started following the Gurus and became Sikh, to shut up a guy who's saying that all Sikhs are Hindus. Somehow that's where the argument has reached. A bit of history along with the names would be appreciated.
Thanks for your help in advance!

This question has perplexed for a long time.
First of I'm a Sikh and cut hair and still learning and want to apologise to anybody who takes offence.
Ok I do not know why One of our Guru's built a mosque for the Muslims when in their book , they dont treat women the same , they have a 50 year old profit having *** with a under age child.
The only thing that makes sense, is they didn't read their book(which i dont believe) or their book has been changed so much since our Guru's time.
Also why do people say Jesus is a prophet, when he us jus a metaphor for the sun? Everything Jesus has done is what the sun does, he is the SON of god.
Like I said not to offend just want a discussion.

I was recently watching videos of 2 so called young UK ex-sikh guys both seemed to have been groomed and brainwashed by muslim friends and peers that they hung around. They both didnt have a clue about the basics of Sikhi and both seem to come from a criminal or dysfunctional working class family environments. one from a mixed hindu/sikh parents family and other from domestic abusive family.
From my observation back in the days Sikh guys especially the younger guys would not leave Sikhi for anything they were proud, tribal and confident in their religion even if they weren't practising or have much knowledge of it. Back in 80s and 90s Sikhs would fight muslim extremists in street battles when muslims tried to sexually abuse, groom and convert Hindu/Sikh females. But now since the early 2000's the era of the new media, 24/7 broadband and access to information, social media they are becoming alot more vulnerable to non-sikh propaganda sources questioning such things as meaning of life? what happens after death? and role religion has answering it. In india we have christian abrahamics grooming and trying to convert them on the sly. In the west we have atheist hedonist propaganda and muslims grooming and converting them on openly no longer just targeting females.
I find alot more younger guys know alot more about other ideologies and researching those than researching their own. There is so much atheist and islamic propaganda talking about key issues that Sikh groups are not talking about in terms of faith. Basics of Sikhi was doing a great job until bhai jagraj Singh sadly passed away now there's no one left doing street parchar or even online parchar proper to guide the next generation in practicing their faith in working class urban environments.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5705365/Gang-posed-police-kidnapping-man-jailed-48-years.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6226596/kidnap-gang-posing-as-police-bundle-victim-into-car-fitted-with-blue-lights/
Gang who posed as police before kidnapping man, bundling him into fake squad car and demanding £100,000 ransom are jailed for more than 48 years
Two of the men grabbed the victim as he left his Bromley home in London
They made menacing calls to his elderly mother and relatives demanding money
He was only released when it became clear the gang were not going to get paid
The four men were all convicted of kidnap, blackmail and falsely imprisoning him
By Phoebe Southworth For Mailonline
Published: 20:24, 8 May 2018 | Updated: 15:29, 10 May 2018
A gang who posed as police to kidnap a man by bundling him into a fake squad car then demanded a £100,000 ransom have been jailed for more than 48 years.
The victim was ambushed seconds after leaving his home in Bromley, south east London, at about 11.20pm on December 22, 2016.
The violent gang chased him down and savagely beat him, forcing him to the ground 'like a pack of dogs' before bundling him into a black Audi with flashing blue lights.
+6
+6
Conrad Jackson (left) drove the kidnap vehicle - a fake police car fitted with blue flashing lights - and Reece Jackson (right) helped him bundle the victim into the car in Bromley, south east London
They threatened to kill the victim and fired an imitation gun inside the vehicle, which contained stab vests, handcuffs and cable ties, Inner London Crown Court heard.
The thugs held the terrified man for seven hours and made menacing calls to his elderly mother and relatives demanding more than £100,000 for his release.
At one point neighbours saw him desperately scrambling out of the car on his hands and knees before Conrad and Reece Jackson punched him and threw him back in.
The victim was not released until just before 7am when it became clear the gang's demands for money would not be met.
The four men denied but were convicted by a jury following a trial of joint charges of conspiracy to kidnap, conspiracy to imprison falsely and conspiracy to blackmail.
Jurors also convicted Conrad and Reece Jackson jointly of possession of an imitation firearm, and Rollins of possession of a class A drug.
Sentencing them on May 8, Judge Mark Bishop said: 'It was a ruthless act of violence, snatching someone off the street and subduing him with violence.
'One witness described it as a frenzied attack, like someone being set on by a pack of dogs. At one point she thought the victim was dead.
'The demands made were chilling and threatening, demanding at one stage £100,000.
'There can be no doubt that this experience would have been frightening and shocking for the family.'
+6
+6
Amir Sahir (left) had been spying on the victim before the attack and Zephan Rollins (right) took part in the blackmail
Conrad Jackson, 25, a Business Management student at London Metropolitan University, was said to be the 'intellectual' ringleader of the gang and drove the car.
He was joined by Reece Jackson, also 25 - described as the 'muscle' behind the operation.
CCTV played for jurors showed 'inside man' and father-of-three Amir Sahir, 29, spying on the victim from a second car before the attack.
He lived on the same street as the victim and let Conrad and Reece know when they should pounce.
Fourth conspirator Zephan Rollins, 30, was said to be 'centrally involved' in the blackmail.
He had recently been released on licence from a ten-year jail term for possession of a firearm.
+6
A set of handcuffs recovered from the black Audi being driven by Conrad Jackson during the kidnap. It also contained stab vests and cable ties
Prosecutor Michael Bisgrove previously told the court: 'The victim was on the road outside his home address. A black Audi vehicle pulled up with blue lights flashing.
'One of the two men in the vehicle got out and ran towards the victim.
'The victim ran away. He was pursued by the man on foot and by the Audi vehicle which was reversed at speed.
'A short distance away the victim was caught up with. He was assaulted.
'Neighbours saw and heard him being punched and kicked to the floor, picked up and put into the back of the Audi, which drove away at speed.
'Over the next seven hours or so, a number of telephone calls were made.'
+6
An imitation firearm recovered from the kidnap vehicle. It was shot while the victim was inside
He said the calls to the victim's family were 'particularly to his brother and his elderly mother' - demanding ransoms which 'at times were in excess of £100,000'.
'They threatened to shoot the victim and indeed an imitation firearm was present,' said Mr Brisgrove, adding that it was discharged in the car.
'The victim was eventually released shortly before seven the following morning when it became clear the demands were not going to be met.'
Conrad Jackson, of Bromley, south east London, was jailed for 15 years for his role in the kidnap, as well as drugs offences and possession of criminal property.
Reece Jackson, of Finsbury Park, north London, was jailed for 12-and-a-half years for the kidnap, possession of cannabis and taking a conveyance without authority.
Sahir, of Bromley, south east London, was jailed for ten years.
He was also banned from driving for six years because he drove while disqualified when he was spying on the victim from a car in the street they both lived on.
Rollins, of Bromley, south east London, was jailed for 11 years.
Detective Inspector Gary Myers, who leads the Met’s Modern Slavery and Kidnap Unit, blasted the defendants as 'despicable'.

Sikh24 reported that Gurdwaras were opening their doors to Manchester jihadi attack victims, and also Sikh cabbies were giving free rides to victims. No biggie, right? Wrong. It seems that at least some Muslims and their sympathizers were upset at highlighting this fact.
Check out this tweet by a Sikh about Sikh cabbies giving free rides:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SinghLions/status/866930974369632256/photo/1
@dineshjoshi70 applauds @SinghLions and says:
Gurudwaras worldwide are messengers of humanity . So are the Sikhs
and so do some others.
But not Twitter user @ShazU_91. She asks why identify the religion of the good samaritans?:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShazU_91/status/866937798686912512?p=p
and:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShazU_91/status/866941338742378496?p=p
Actually what really pisses off Miss ShazU_91 is that normal people appreciate Sikhs' warm and giving personalities and the fact that they are not bombing average British people, and people are figuring out the difference between Sikhs and Muslim, even people like Katie Hopkins in her latest article:
What Miss ShazU_91 wants is a united colored peoples front where whenever the latest Islamic terror attack occurs, everybody who isn't white (West Indians, Chinese and other orientals, aboriginals from various places, Indians including Sikhs, Pakistanis, middle-easterners, Africans, North Africans, Latinos, etc.) get lumped into a single category, and no further distinctions are made. And I don't think we should give her what she wants.

To all my sikh brothers & sisters on this site... there is no point in talking to a Muslim & there is certainly no point in ever trusting anything that comes out of their mouths!
They consider us as Kafirs (non believers) and therefore are permitted under the laws of Islam to practice what is known as 'TAQIYYA' when having any dealing with us.
I urge you all to research & learn about TAQIYYA for yourself but have added some info below.
Also remember that Guru Gobind Singh Ji explicitly said the word of a Muslim is never to be trusted. Remember how the lowly dogs of Aurugzebs army swore oaths on the Quran but then broke them at the first chance at Anandpur & how Guru Sahib exposed their treacherous ways. It is in their blood to lie & deceive.
TAQIYYA
Deception, Lying
and Taqiyya
Does Islam permit Muslims to lie?
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."
There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
Quran
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..
Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir (vol 4, p 49)
Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"
Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below). Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means. Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy." Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)." Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered. From Islamic Law: Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)
"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie."
Notes
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There are several forms: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity. Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32(that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief." Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression. Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others believed they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, vis-à-vis Islam, 1990 was nothing more than a sheer travesty. In the words of Abul A'la Mawdudi, a leading Islamist of the 20th century, "all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah." Though apologists were out in full force spinning yarns regarding some golden age of Dhimmitude, the more erudite couldn't help but shake their heads; where was the objectivity in this so-called declaration of rights? Sarkar's words, written nearly a century back, lent a grim air to the proceedings in Cairo; non-conformism in a fully fledged Islamic state, which is essentially theocratic and run on the diktats of Shari'ah, is akin to treason and treason-Ipso facto- in the caliphate is punishable by death.
Some of the more radiant facets of this declaration are quoted below:
'Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent permanent body to promote human rights in the Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and to also call for the elaboration of an OIC Charter for Human Rights. Introduce changes to national laws and regulations in order to guarantee the respect of human rights in Member States...'
followed further by the now infamous:
'Mandate the OIC General Secretariat to cooperate with other international and regional organizations to guarantee the rights of Muslim Minorities and Communities in non-OIC Member States, and promote close cooperation with the Governments of the States hosting Muslim communities.'
Put simply, the preamble makes clear the OIC's desire to create and direct international organizations with the aim of preserving Muslim Rights (specifically the practice and promulgation of the Shari'ah as stated further in the charter) in non-Islamic nations even at the expense of the said nations' constitution and constitutional mandate.
And:
'Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commands, which are contained in the Revealed Books of Allah and which were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages and that safeguarding those fundamental rights and freedoms is an act of worship whereas the neglect or violation thereof is an abominable sin, and that the safeguarding of those fundamental rights and freedom is an individual responsibility of every person and a collective responsibility of the entire Ummah...'
It is to be noted here that only Islamic yardsticks are to be utilized to question the faith, any objectivity will not be tolerated on the grounds that it is blasphemy. Put simply apostasy, homosexuality, adultery and criticism of Islam will be severely punished etc etc:
'(a) It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right [of life] against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari’ah prescribed reason.'
More nefarious are the following:
Article 9:
'(a) The seeking of knowledge is an obligation and provision of education is the duty of the society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee its diversity in the interest of the society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and uncover the secrets of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.'
This point is further clarified in Article 10:
'Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.'
It should be remembered that conscious apostasy in Islam (by an adult) is punishable by death. Again, no parameters are ever set to assist in defining "pressure," "exploit," "poverty" and "ignorance." One cannot help but remember the words of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cordozo here:
'Freedom of thought...is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom...'
-Palke vs. Connecticut (1937).
Generally Muslims lie to deflect attention from such elements of their faith. The truth, however, stands. It must be remembered that because the 5th Guru had Sikhs who were ex-Muslims among his apostles, he was executed; in the words of the imbecile Adeeba:
‘The question that arises is how a community, enjoying sufficient freedom to achieve all that it had, could continue to increase its power establishment, move towards relative self-autonomy whilst impudently converting the Muslims from the truth of al-Islaam to the falsehood and disbelief of Sikhism...?'
It becomes transparent to anyone reading this gross perversion of the UN Declaration of Rights that, vis-a-vis ideology, no separation of Church and State exists in the Islamic spectrum. In the words of Burckhardt:
'In Islam, where this fusion (between state and church took place), the whole culture was dominated, shaped and colored by it. Islam has only one form of polity, of necessity despotic, the consummation of power, secular, priestly and theocratic, which was transferred from the Caliphate to all dynasties. Thus all its pasts were mere replicas of the world empire on a small scale, hence Arabized (sic) and despotic...'
-Burckhardt (1865-1885), 'Reflections on History,' Liberty Fund, 1979, pg. 141.
*OIC- Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
The Jihad against non-Muslims has already been declared. Where do you stand?

Dear Sangat Ji,
A Muslim attacker proclaiming Muhammad Rasool Allah has today attacked Sangat and angs of Maharaj at a Gurdwara in London UK.
The Muslim attacker tore angs of Guru Sahib and attacked Sangat.
Fortunately the Muslim attacker was caught by brave Singhs and handed over to Police who arrested him.
Whole incident was caught on Camera and the Muslim attacker wore shoes and burned torn angs of Maharaj with the lighted cigarette he came in smoking with.
Message to Sangat please increase security at your local Gurdwara!

Hello,
I am not sure if my previous post was successful but my name is Simran and I have fallen in love with a muslim man. I want to marry him but I'm unsure of the reaction I will receive when introducing a muslim man to my family. He is 24 and I am 23. I would really appreciate your views on an interfaith marriage, more specifically a sikh-muslim marriage, and any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Simran.

http://www.sikh24.com/2016/12/04/sukhmani-sahib-scripture-vandalized-in-ludhiana-police-arrest-muslim-minors/#.WEMsR7nYEm4
Are these guys insane do they not realise what the consequences of doing this?

At the beginning of last year (2012), the Sikh Riot Awareness Facebook group posted this video of a Muslim man marrying a Sikh woman in a Gurdwara: https://www.facebook.com/Global.Sikh.Awareness/posts/347505678617592
As you can tell by the comments, most people were not pleased and were angry that this was allowed to take place. (click "view previous comments and go up to the very top). There were even girls that said it was wrong and shouldn't have happened, which surprised me, usually I only hear of men speaking out against this kind of stuff, but a lot of Sikh females were displeased as well.
Someone showed me another Muslim-Sikh marriage video yesterday, this also took place in a Gurdwara. The difference? This time, the girl was Muslim and the guy was Sikh (mona). Here it is:
I am just interested in seeing if there is as much outrage over this happening as there was over the last one.
Ironically, the Muslim girl does a better matha thek than the Sikh girl lol.
For the first video, imagine if the girl ran away with the Muslim, what would people say then? They would bash him for not even having the decency to enter a Gurdwara and respect the girl's families wishes. Say what you want, at least he had enough respect to bow down in front of Guru Ji, he might not practice Sikhi, but it does show he is open-minded, and since they got married in a Gurdwara, I doubt he made her convert to Islam. What is the difference between marrying a Muslim and a guy who is only Sikh-by-name? In neither case would that Sikh girl raise her children to practice Sikhi, so does it really make a difference? If a non-practicing member of our community, who probably knows nothing about the religion, doesn't even know how to matha thek properly, wants to marry out, what's the big deal?
For the second video, again, is there any outrage? The Sikh guy is obviously not practicing, so does it make a difference if his wife is a Muslim? If he had married a Sikh girl, chances are she herself wouldn't be practicing either, so in neither case would he produce practicing Sikh children.
Thoughts?

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/sikh-student-90mph-police-chase-10243375
Rajdeep Chana, 20, sentenced to 18 weeks jail, suspended for 18 months, after crashing car in high-speed drama
2602 Shares
Share
Tweet
+1
LinkedIn
Subscribe
A Sikh student has received a suspended jail sentence after sparking a 90mph police chase through Birmingham - after a family row over his Muslim girlfriend.
Rajdeep Chana, 20, had taken his father’s car after being told to end the relationship and then went to pick up his secret love.
But he ‘panicked’ when police ordered him to pull over and he crashed during the early-morning pursuit after losing control at a roundabout.
The Birmingham Metropolitan College student was sentenced to 18 weeks jail, suspended for 18 months, after admitting aggravated vehicle taking, dangerous driving and failing to stop.
Chana, of Weeford Road, Handsworth Wood, was also ordered to complete 180 hours unpaid work, pay £420 costs and was banned from the roads for a year.
Duncan Craig, prosecuting at Birmingham Crown Court, said Chana had taken his father’s Honda Accord in the early hours of September 4 and was later seen by police driving it erratically in Wheelright Road.
Officers indicated for him to stop and he pulled the vehicle over - but then sped off, with the Accord’s lights flashing.
Mr Craig said police followed at speeds of 90mph along the Tyburn Road, before the student crashed into a barrier - leaving the vehicle a write-off.
BIRMINGHAM BREAKING NEWS
LATEST CRIME STORIES
BRUM'S POLITICS
CITY CENTRE NEWS
POLICE INCIDENTS
FIRE AND RESCUE
NHS WEST MIDLANDS
UP IN COURT
AMBULANCE EMERGENCIES
Gurdeep Garcha, defending, called Chana ‘very immature’. He had picked up his girlfriend in his father’s car and had been driving around considering what to do next when police tried to stop him - and he 'panicked'.
He added: “The background to this case is this defendant has been in a relationship with a girl who is a Muslim and he is a Sikh. His parents and other family members disapproved of that relationship. But for this defendant it is a relationship that is serious and long term.
“On the night of this offence he and his father had an argument about the relationship. His father had told him it must effectively come to an end.
“It was a consequence of that the defendant left the home and foolishly took his father’s keys and drove away in the car. Plainly, the offence occurred at a time of heightened emotion.”
The court heard Chana was currently studying to be a masseur and his ambition was to work within the footballing industry.
Sentencing him, Recorder Boydell said: “You are still a relatively young man who seems to have embarked on a course of self-destruction to some extent. You threatened the lives of other road users and caused emergency services to be placed in a position of danger.”
However, the judge said he accepted that his driving was over a relatively short distance and that the defendant had shown great remorse.
Have you got our free app? Download it to keep up to date with all the latest news, sport and what's on stories. On iOS? download here or for Android click here

What follows are two extracts from the book We, Our Nationhood Defined written by M.S. Golwarkar, the second leader of the RSS:
"To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by."[31] "Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindustan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to take on these despoilers. The Race Spirit has been awakening."
"The non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture ... In a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens' rights."
These horrific offerings are distinct from Islamic fundamentalism in some very important ways:
1 - Islam is not an inherently racist creed. Hindutva on the other hand appears to take for its inspiration the same sort of racial theories propounded by the Nazis, and covertly advocates genocide in the pursuit of Hindu racial hegemony by recommending Hindustanis to adopt Nazi methods. Even the pictures of them in their uniforms and at their rallies in formation evoke echoes of the Third Reich.
2 - Shariah law is repugnant, there can be no doubt, especially in point of its treatment of unbelievers. But even non-Muslim dhimmis living beneath the aegis of the Dar-ul-Islam are afforded basic rights such as protection by their rulers. Hindutva would deny them even that. It would literally reduce them to a subhuman level.
3 - It is based on a dangerous hallucination. The forces of Hindutva have somehow managed to utterly convince themselves that the laughable Hindu record of defeats at Muslim hands was actually a 'gallant fight' (to take the words of Gokalwar himself). Only a person of breathtaking psychiatric imbalance could perform these sorts of mental gymnastics. The cause of Islamic Jihad is manned by stupid fanatics - the cause of Hindu nationalism is manned by insane fanatics.
This is scary stuff. I haven't yet decided whether it frightens me more than Islamism, but that there should even be a contest between the two says it all. Also, it bears mentioning that whilst Punjab hasn't really been affected by Jihad, the tentacles of the RSS have embedded themselves deeply and extensively.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04vxtbv
Listen from 15 mins, theres a girl called harpreet who realised her mistake of marrying out young and now wants to become amritdhari. Atleast some people realise...
waheguru